Appendix 2 Chronology of The Letters

Appendix 2 | Chronology of the Letters
In 1898 the Italian philologist Nicola Festa published an edition of

217 letters by Theodore Laskaris. The total number is larger, because Festa
counted two letters to the Phaix brothers as one letter (Ep. 121) and merged
into a single letter (Ep. 25) what in fact are two separate pieces: a preamble
(prooimion) to a donation to Theodore’s teacher Nikephoros Blemmydes
and a rhetorical recapitulation of this unspecified grant. The total of the
letters grows to 220 when one adds the lengthy letter to George Akropolites
that Theodore Laskaris included into the collection of his ten secular works.
The letters were addressed to twenty-seven correspondents – one more than
the twenty-six counted by Festa (who registered the metropolitan of Kyzi-
kos, Kleidas, and Pope Alexander IV as the same correspondent, numbered
as 19). Unfortunately, letters addressed to Theodore Laskaris have rarely
survived. The exceptions are Blemmydes’ twenty-nine letters to his royal
tutee and a letter by Pope Alexander IV.1
The letters have come down to us without any date in an edited version
prepared under the author’s auspices, sometimes with the help of an editor,
as is the case with the Laurentian epistolary collection. Establishing the
chronology of the letters is a challenging task that involves the same
detective work as with the author’s other writings. More than a century
ago, August Heisenberg made a few hasty suggestions that he later
retracted. In a review of Festa’s edition, he assigned all letters to
Akropolites in the Laurentian epistolary collection to the second half of
the year 1246 at a time when Akropolites accompanied the senior emperor
1
Festa published thirty-one letters by Blemmydes as an appendix to the edition of Theodore
Laskaris’ epistles, but the number can be reduced safely to twenty-nine: Blem., Ep. 4 refers to an
emperor in Constantinople and is addressed to Michael Palaiologos (see Andreeva 1929); Blem.,
Ep. 27 is addressed to the patriarch Manuel II (see Munitiz 2003 for the attribution and a
translation). Common subjects and themes occasionally link the letters sent and received by
Theodore. Thus, in Ep. 8 he promises Blemmydes a mule that he has not yet sent, Blemmydes
responds that he is awaiting the mule (Blem., Ep. 15), and in Ep. 9 Theodore dispatches the pack
animal. The letter of Pope Alexander IV to Theodore has been published by Schillmann
1918:119–23; Haluščynskyj and Wojnar 1966:48–51 (no. 28b). 347
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Warwick, on 03 Aug 2019 at 14:51:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108690874.015
348 Appendix 2
on a campaign in the Balkans.2 He argued that the letters follow a chrono-

logical order and proposed 1253–54 as the timeframe of Theodore’s letters
to George Mouzalon: during an absence, probably of only one or two
months, when Mouzalon was away recovering from illness.3 In the preface
to the second volume of the edition of Akropolites’ works, however,
Heisenberg rightly pointed out that there was no prima facie reason for
this simple chronology.4 References to known historical events and epi-
sodes in the life of the author are the main method for assigning a date to a
single letter. Fortunately, the existence of thematic-chronological clusters
(see below) expands the number of datable letters. Valuable clues are added
by the codicological context. The discussion below begins with the manu-
script transmission of the letters, with a special focus on the Laurentian
collection. A series of thematic-chronological clusters are then identified.
A list of dated letters and arguments favoring specific timeframes follows.
The Manuscripts
Festa edited the letters on the basis of the three manuscripts and grouped
them according to their addressees, adhering to the sequence of corres-
pondents in the Laurentian epistolary collection, which served as the
backbone of his edition. In one exceptional case (two letters to
Hagiotheodorites), he rearranged the order.5 After reaching the last letter
to each correspondent in the Laurentian collection, Festa edited letters
addressed to the same recipient (if such letters have survived) from Cod.
Vindob. philol. gr. 312 (V). In addition, Festa edited letters to two recipi-
ents from another Laurentian manuscript: Laurentianus, Conventi sop-
pressi 627. Most of Theodore’s letters are transmitted by a codex unicus,
that is, by only one of the three manuscripts, with a small number of them
addressed to Blemmydes and Akropolites being copied both in the only
surviving codex of the Laurentian collection and in V.6
2
Heisenberg 1900:216. The year is wrongly printed as 1245. As Heisenberg himself pointed out
on the margin of his edition of Akropolites’ History, this expedition took place in 1246. See
Akrop. I, §43– §45 (pp. 72–83).
3 4
Heisenberg 1900:220. Akrop. II, VIII n. 1.
5
The letters to Blemmydes and Akropolites in Cod. Laur. gr. 59, 35 are immediately followed by
two letters to Hagiotheodorites, the first of which lacks a heading and is jointly addressed to
Hagiotheodorites and Mouzalon on the occasion of the marriage of the latter’s sister. Festa
preferred to edit the two letters near the end of his edition as Epp. 215 and 216.
6
On the letters to Blemmydes and Akropolites, which the copyist of V selected from a manuscript
of the Laurentian epistolary collection, see 350, n. 17.
Appendix 2 349
Laurentianus Plut. 59, 35 (14th c.), or the Laurentian

Epistolary Collection7
A total of 133 letters on ff. 42r–178r (a total of 131 in Festa’s numeration
due to the above-mentioned manner in which he treated Epp. 25 and 121).
The letters address nineteen recipients. The headings before most of the
groups of letters assign them to the period “before the embassy” of Bert-
hold of Hohenburg. (However, there are some exceptions – see the section
below discussing accretions to the Laurentian collection.) Verses written by
Theodore’s teacher and editor of the letters, George Akropolites, precede
the collection on ff. 39r–40v. Akropolites praises the letters for their style
and content, and recommends them warmly to the reader.8 A table of
contents (pinax) follows on f. 41r–v just before the opening group of letters
addressed to Nikephoros Blemmydes. Interestingly, a letter by Theodore
Xanthopoulos to an anonymous megas logothetes (f. 40r–v) – who has been
identified as Theodore Metochites, appointed to this high position in
1321 – appears immediately after the verses and just before the table of
contents; this letter was copied after the production of the manuscript by a
different scribal hand in the scant space available.9
Cod. Laur. Plut. 59, 35 is a miscellaneous paper manuscript produced in
the early fourteenth century. The bulk of the codex consists of letters by
Synesius of Cyrene and Theodore Laskaris; it contains also an oration by
the Maximos Planoudes on the entombment of Jesus and the lamentation
of the Virgin, and a few other minor texts. The date of production of the
manuscript is confirmed by colophons mentioning the death of Irene of
Brunswick, first wife of Andronikos III, on August 16, 1324 (f. 38v); the
name of Hélion de Villeneuve, grand master of the Knights of St. John on
Rhodes (in the years 1319–46) (f. 178r); and the passing of a certain nun,
Martha, on March 14, 1330 (f. 188v).10 The manuscript circulated among
scholars and teachers in Constantinople in the 1320s. Clear indications are
the copying of Xanthopoulos’ letter to a megas logothetes (Theodore
Metochites) and another contemporary letter addressed by the astronomer
Nicholas Rabdas to Andronikos Zarides, which predicts the solar eclipse
on June 26, 1321, and the lunar eclipse on July 10 that year.11 The
manuscript made its way to Florence in the fifteenth century when the
7
Described by Bandini 1768: 555–68; most recently also by Riehle 2016:161–63.
8 9
Akrop. II, 7–9. Edited and translated by Riehle 2016:251–52.
10
The notes have been published by Bandini 1768:566–67; one of them has been republished by
Trapp 1978:200.
11
Published by Riehle 2015.
350 Appendix 2
humanist Politian wrote marginal scholia on the letters of Synesius.12

A note written in Greek and Latin in brown ink on f. 40r states that “the
codex was a property of Angelus Politianus and friends.”
Vindobonensis Philol. gr. 321 (13th c.)13

A total of forty-nine letters (ff. 310r–v, 59r–64v, 318r, 68r–71v, 311r–v,
72r–73v, 108r–114v) copied in a section of the codex that contains works
of Theodore II Laskaris. Some single folios (ff. 310, 318, 311) have been
bound at the end of the manuscript. There is a lacuna, with missing folios,
between f. 311 and f. 72.14
The headings before the epistles to individual recipients copied on ff.
310r–v, 59r–64v, 318r, 68r–71v, 311r–v, 71r–73v – a total of twenty-four
letters – tend to assign a date after “the full completeness of imperial rule”
(μετὰ τὴν τῆς βασιλείας ἐντελέχειαν) or, in the case of the letters to George
Mouzalon, identify the recipient as “brother” of the emperor and holder of
the titles protosebastos, protovestiarios and megas stratopedarches. These
twenty-four letters all date to the period of Theodore’s rule as a sole
emperor and seem to have been part of an authorized edition of his works
prepared at that time.15 They include: seven epistles to Blemmydes; three
to Akropolites; one to Kleidas, the metropolitan of Kyzikos; one to
Germanos, the metropolitan of Adrianople; six to representatives of the
Roman curia (Pope Alexander IV and the cardinals Peter Capoccio,
Richard Annibaldi, and Ottaviano Ubaldini); two letters to a certain Philip;
and four addressed to George Mouzalon.16
An additional twenty-five letters addressed solely to Blemmydes and
Akropolites are copied on ff. 108r–114v.17 Notably, the epithets of
12
Maïer 1965:335.
13
The manuscript has been described by Hunger 1961:409–18. On the section with the Laskaris
texts, see Agapitos and Angelov 2018.
14
The lacuna, noticed by Festa, falls between Ep. 145 to Cardinal Richard Annibaldi and Ep. 148
addressed to a certain Philip.
15
See the analysis of V in Agapitos and Angelov 2018. Appendix I, 326–27.
16
Their order in Festa’s edition is as follows: Epp. 42–48 (to Blemmydes), 87–89 (to Akropolites),
141 (to Kleidas, the metropolitan of Kyzikos), 131 (to Germanos, the metropolitan of
Adrianople), 142 (to Pope Alexander IV), 144 (to Richard Annibaldi), 146 (to Ottaviano
Ubaldini), 143 (to Pope Alexander IV), 147 (to Peter Capoccio), 145 (to Richard Annibaldi),
148–49 (to Philip), 211–14 (to Mouzalon).
17
Epp. 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 26, 33, 36, 40, 41 (addressed to Blemmydes), 49, 56, 57, 58, 60, 67, 69,
71, 72, 76, 81, 82, 85 (addressed to Akropolites). On the paleographical peculiarities of this
section of V, see Agapitos and Angelov 2018. Festa did not always note the presence of a letter
in V in his edition.
Appendix 2 351
Blemmydes in the headings in the Laurentian epistolary collection and in

this section of V are identical: πρὸς τὸν ἐν φιλοσόφοις μέγαν διδάσκαλον καὶ
ἁγιώτατον ἱερομόναχον κῦρ Νικηφόρον τὸν Βλεμμύδην (Βλεμμίδην in V).
This circumstance suggests that the copyist had a manuscript of the
Laurentian collection in front of him.18 He chose to copy letters to Blem-
mydes and Akropolites that focused on the student-teacher relationship.
Laurentianus, Conventi soppressi 627 (13th c.)19

A total of sixty-two letters (1r–11v) copied at the beginning of the manuscript.
The heading before the sixty-one letters to George Mouzalon (Epp. 150–210)
identify the recipient as the “brother” of the emperor and a holder of the titles
protosebastos, protovestiarios and megas stratopedarches. A note on f. 5v
separates the preceding letters (Epp. 150–92, forty-three in total), dating them
to the period “before the full completeness of imperial rule” (πρὸ τῆς τῆς
βασιλείας ἐντελεχείας) from the letters that follow (Epp. 193–210, eighteen in
total), which it assigns to the period “after the full completeness of imperial
rule” (μετὰ τὴν τῆς βασιλείας ἐντελέχειαν). A letter to “the learned teachers of
rhetoric and poetry” Michael Senachereim and Andronikos Phrangopoulos
(Ep. 217) follows the Mouzalon dossier. The heading of this letter seems to be
a scribal addition: “Another letter by the same, that is, the wisest emperor
Lord Theodore Doukas Laskaris.”
The miscellaneous paper codex is important for the transmission of
antique love novels by Longus, Achilles Tatius, Chariton, and Xenophon
of Ephesos. In addition, the manuscript preserves specimens – sometimes
unique ones – of eleventh-, twelfth- and thirteenth-century poetry, various
Nicaean and early Palaiologan texts, letters of Gregory of Nazianzus and
Basil of Caesarea, and other works.
The Laurentian Epistolary Collection (Early 1254)
This edition of the letters postdates the embassy of Berthold of Hohenburg

(autumn 1253), because the embassy is mentioned in the headings of
letters to individual recipients, just as the same embassy appears in the
headings of individual works in the collection Sacred Orations. As we have
18
For this argument, see also Agapitos and Angelov 2018.
19
Described by Rostagno and Festa 1893:172–76.
352 Appendix 2
seen in Chapter 7, the stimulating intellectual discussions during Bert-

hold’s visit to the Anatolian Byzantine court gave Theodore the impetus to
publish the two collections, which could have been produced either during
or, most probably, in the intermediate aftermath of the embassy. Scholars
have traditionally dated the epistolary collection on the basis of the career
and movements of its editor, George Akropolites, who was a civil official in
the service of the emperor John Vatatzes at the time. In his History of
Byzantine Literature Karl Krumbacher remarked in passing that Akropo-
lites edited the letters in 1252.20 In the review of Festa’s edition, Heisenberg
noted briefly that the publication of the letters took place before 1253.21
Elsewhere he elaborated that the publication could have been prepared at
any time between 1246 and 1252, and in any case before March 1252 when,
according to Heisenberg, Akropolites departed for the Balkans along with
John Vatatzes on a military expedition in the Balkans.22 Another scholar
has suggested that, perhaps, the editing started at the end of 1251 and
finished in the spring of 1252.23
None of these views takes into account the date of the embassy of
Berthold of Hohenburg. In fact, two letters in the collection (Epp. 40 and
125, the latter clearly dating to the autumn of 1253) explicitly mention the
arrival of Berthold and the philosophical discussions at the court. Also
datable to 1253 is a cluster of letters occasioned by the “Theodore Philes
affair” (Epp. 35–39, 77–78, 80; see below). Notably, in his prefatory poem
Akropolites uses the expression Θεοδώρου Λάσκαρι τοῦ βασιλέως ἄνακτος
υἱοῦ παγκλεοῦς Ἰωάννου, which refers to Theodore as the heir and coem-
peror: the preparation of the epistolary collection by Akropolites clearly
predates November 1254.24 Akropolites accompanied John Vatatzes on his
Balkan campaign in 1252 and 1253 against Michael II Komnenos Doukas
of Epiros. He left Anatolia in the first half of 1252, wintered in the Balkans,
and returned to Asia Minor along with the senior emperor in the late
autumn of 1253, after the public treason trial of Michael Palaiologos during
the autumn of the same year in Philippi in eastern Macedonia. Berthold of
Hohenburg must still have been in Anatolia at the time, awaiting the return
of the senior emperor. After crossing the Hellespont, John Vatatzes briefly
visited Nicaea and was reunited with his son on the main road to the
20 21
Krumbacher 1897:287. Heisenberg 1900:213.
22
Heisenberg in Akrop. II, VIII. On the departure of the campaign in the spring of 1252, see
Chapter 7, pp. 128–29.
23
See the preface by Markopoulos (1968:107, n. 3) to his edition of Theodore’s encomium on
George Akropolites.
24
Akrop. II, 8.19–20.
Appendix 2 353
Thrakesion theme (see below the thematic cluster of Epp. 83–86). The
court then wintered in Nymphaion. John Vatatzes was back in Nicaea at
the end of February 1254 in order to take care of the city’s defenses because
of an anticipated Mongol invasion.25
It is during the winter sojourn of the court in Nymphaion that Akropo-
lites had the opportunity to edit the collection. Notably, none of the letters in
the collection is datable to the year 1254. Therefore, I would like to suggest
the early months of 1254 as the date for the preparation of the Laurentian
epistolary collection and the Sacred Orations. One can imagine Theodore
and Akropolites, a student and a teacher, discussing the arrangement of the
letters and deciding to begin with those addressed to their common mentor,
the monk and philosopher Nikephoros Blemmydes. The epistolary collec-
tion was in large part intended to be a record of the education of the author
and his evolving relationship with his teachers. The first letter to Blemmydes
(Ep. 1) documents the beginning of Theodore’s studies and the penultimate
letter (Ep. 40) describes a discussion during Berthold’s embassy. An overall –
but not uninterrupted – chronological arrangement is noticeable, as are
thematic clusters of letters. The degree of Akropolites’ editorial intervention
is, of course, impossible to gauge. The letters to Akropolites were placed after
those to Blemmydes. The first epistle in this section, a dream vision, presents
the author as still needing instruction; the last letters refer to the return of
Akropolites after a long period of separation (1252–53). Once again, there is
an overall chronological arrangement and there are thematic clusters. The
letters to Hagiotheodorites, Patriarch Manuel II, and other correspondents
follow those to Blemmydes and Akropolites.
One possible counterargument against dating the Laurentian epistolary
collection to early 1254 is the surprising presence of divergent headings.
The letters preserved in Laur. gr. 59, 35 address a total of nineteen recipi-
ents, including a few joint recipients. In the majority of cases (in ten cases),
a reference is made in the heading to a period before the embassy of the
marquis Berthold of Hohenburg. In four cases, the headings lack any
chronological or authorial marker whatsoever, something that may result
from a scribal omission: the letters to Hagiotheodorites, the secretary
Kostomyres, the domestic of the scholae Kalothetos, and Demetrios
25
According to Akrop I, §49 (p. 92.22–24), John Vatatzes encamped in Philippi in the autumn
(that is, the autumn of 1253) and convened a high tribunal at which Michael Palaiologos was
put on trial. The senior emperor then crossed into Anatolia and wintered in Nymphaion, as was
his custom, for he came back “from the East” to Nicaea in late February. See Akrop. I, §52 (p.
101.19–23); Synopsis chronike, 504.14–16.
354 Appendix 2
Iatropoulos, the prokathemenos of Philadelphia.26 Three headings, how-

ever, refer to a period before the “full completeness of imperial rule” (πρὸ
τῆς τῆς βασιλείας ἐντελεχείας), a type of heading found in collections
produced during the emperor’s reign: letters to the patriarchal officials
Xiphilinos and Argyropoulos, letters to the monk Akakios, and a letter to
the secretary Kallistos.27 Finally, there are two cases of headings referring
to the period “before the full completeness of imperial rule and the
embassy of the marquis” (πρὸ τῆς τῆς βασιλείας ἐντελεχείας καὶ τῆς τοῦ
μαρκίωνος πρεσβείας): a letter to the monk Neilos, abbot of the monastery
tou Stylou, and a letter to the secretary Manikaites.28
Two important features unite the letters with divergent headings that
mention the period “before the full completeness of imperial rule” and “before
the full completeness of imperial rule and the embassy of the marquis.” First,
they are all copied (Epp. 126–137 in Festa’s edition) after the letters whose
headings refer to the embassy. Second, they are mostly single letters per
recipient (and, in any case, never exceed four letters), which is far less than
the letters to Blemmydes, Akropolites, and the patriarch Manuel II. A very
probable scenario is that these relatively few letters (none can be dated down
to a specific year through internal evidence) were copied, or were inserted, as
an appendix after the letters edited by Akropolites. The collection, thus, grew
by accretion. The resulting expanded collection was recopied during the sole
reign of Theodore Laskaris in a sort of a second edition, with some of the
headings now featuring the phrase πρὸ τῆς τῆς βασιλείας ἐντελεχείας, whether
alone or in combination with the standard formula referring to Berthold’s
embassy. As we have seen, the phrase πρὸ τῆς τῆς βασιλείας ἐντελεχείας was
preferred to the formula referring to Berthold’s embassy in editions produced
during the emperor’s rule. This preference is clearly seen in the Trinitarian
treatise opening the Sacred Orations once the treatise was included into the
collection Christian Theology as its fifth discourse.
The fourteenth-century Laurentian codex shows evidence of disruption in
the original edition. For one thing, the table of contents (pinax) placed
before the letters suggests omissions and additions in the process of copy-
ing.29 It lists forty-eight letters addressed to Blemmydes instead of the forty-
26
See pp. 195, 196, 197, 267, 268 of Festa’s edition (Epp. 138, 139, 140, 215–216).
27
See pp. 177, 188, 190 of Festa’s edition (Epp. 126–129, 132–134, 135).
28
See pp. 192, 193 of Festa’s edition (Epp. 136, 137).
29
This pinax found on f. 41r–v is published by Festa, Ep. IV–V. A similar pinax precedes the ten
Sacred Orations in both A and P. The note following the pinax counts the letters, correctly, as
totaling 133, but it may have been added by a copyist rather than have formed part of the
original edition of early 1254. Ιt runs as follows (in Festa’s edition): Ὁμοῦ ἐν τῇδε τῇ βίβλῳ
Appendix 2 355
two copied: six missing letters that were once part of the collection have
since been lost. I am inclined to agree with Heisenberg that one of the letters
to Akropolites, according to its placement in the Laurentian manuscript
(Ep. 55 in Festa’s edition), may actually have been addressed to Blemmydes,
but somehow entered the Akropolites dossier.30 Furthermore, the table of
contents lists one letter to the Phaix brothers instead of the actual four
copied and one letter to Hagiotheodorites instead of the actual two copied.
A sign of the intervention by a copyist is seen in the successive simplification
of headings mentioning the embassy of the marquis Berthold of Hohenburg.
The heading of the forty-two letters to Blemmydes runs as follows: Ἐπιστο-
λαὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως κυροῦ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δούκα, Θεοδώρου τοῦ
Λάσκαρι, πρὸς τὸν ἐν φιλοσόφοις μέγαν διδάσκαλον καὶ ἁγιώτατον ἱερομό-
ναχον κυρὸν Νικηφόρον τὸν Βλεμμύδην πρὸ τῆς τοῦ μαρκίωνος Βελτόρδου Δε
Ὁεμβοὺργ πρεσβείας πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν μέγαν βασιλέα κυρὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν
Δούκα. The heading of the letters to Akropolites lacks the phrase πρὸς τὸν
αὐτὸν μέγαν βασιλέα in the chronological formula. Subsequent headings are
simpler and shorter. Those preceding the letters to the Phaix brothers and to
the metropolitan bishop Andronikos of Sardis and Germanos of Adrianople
do not mention the name of the marquis at all, referring simply to a period
πρὸ τῆς τοῦ μαρκίωνος πρεσβείας.31 There were, therefore, losses, additions,
scribal interventions, and some rearrangement. The growth of the collection
by accretion and its copying during Theodore’s reign could explain this
phenomenon. Nonetheless, these disruptions appear to have been minor
ones, and the letters in the Laur. gr. 59, 35 generally reflect the order and
authorial intent of the original edition.
Thematic Clusters
At first glance, the letters appear to follow chronological sequence both in

the Laurentian collection and in the other manuscripts.32 An overall
chronological order is observable in the batches addressed to Blemmydes
and Akropolites, and also in those to George Mouzalon copied in Laur.,
ἐπιστολαὶ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα τρεῖς: Ἐγράφησαν δὲ πᾶσαι πρὸ <τῆς > τῆς βασιλείας ἐντελεχείας
καὶ τῆς τοῦ μαρκίωνος πρὸς τὸν μέγαν βασιλέα κυρὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν Δούκαν πρεσβείας.
Significantly, the note shows that the letters formed a single manuscript volume (βίβλος).
30
Festa (Ep. VI) suggested that Epp. 55, 62, 66, and 68 addressed to Akropolites may, in fact, have
been intended for Blemmydes. Heisenberg (1900:216) agreed with the reattribution of letter 55
only, connecting it – reasonably in my view – with Blemmydes’ Ep. 15 to Theodore.
31 32
See pp. 166, 172, 188 of Festa’s edition. See the view of Heisenberg 1900:215.
356 Appendix 2
Conventi soppressi 627 and dating to the Bulgarian campaign (1255–56).

The chronological arrangement of letters is a phenomenon traceable in
other Byzantine epistolaria.33 However, a careful examination shows an
organizing principle other than chronology. The letters were grouped as
dossiers of texts addressed to an individual recipient. Within each dossier,
the letters were arranged thematically. It is only in the thematic units that
the chronological ordering of the letters becomes relevant, for the letters
were arranged in such a way as to show development over time. The
thematic clusters themselves tended to follow each other chronologically.
However, there were letters outside the main thematic clusters. These
“stand-alone letters” can be dated only rarely on the basis of references
to important events, such as foreign embassies or Theodore’s activities as a
sole emperor after November 1254. Sometimes these stand-alone letters
disrupt the overall chronological sequence. This is the case with Epp. 18
and 24, addressed to Blemmydes, both datable to 1252 (and both part of
the Laurentian epistolary collection), which frame letters of invitation to
Blemmydes that cannot belong to the year 1252.
The mention of a datable event in a letter that is part of a thematic
cluster makes possible the assignment of chronology to other epistles in the
cluster. This approach can be applied to the following thematic units:
letters critical of Constantine Klaudioupolites, the metropolitan bishop of
Ephesos; letters critical of Nikephoros, the metropolitan bishop of Ephesos;
letters occasioned by the death of Theodore’s wife Elena; letters pertaining
to the Theodore Philes affair; letters to George Mouzalon from the Bulgar-
ian campaign. Not all thematic clusters, however, can be assigned a date.
More than thirty letters from Ep. 150 until at least Ep. 186, occasioned by
the absence of George Mouzalon due to illness, present a particular diffi-
culty I cannot resolve. Ep. 180 is datable to early to mid 1253 and Epp.
183–85 belong to the late autumn of 1253. It would appear that at least this
section of the letters to Mouzalon, as well as the letters to him from the
Bulgarian campaign, follow chronological order.
The Datable Letters and Clusters of Letters
Ep. 1: before autumn 1241. This letter to Blemmydes is the opening one in
the Laurentian epistolary collection and speaks (lines 40–44) of the
33
See the observations by modern editors on the collections containing the letters of John
Mauropous and the emperor Manuel II Palaiologos: Karpozilos 1990:30; Dennis 1977:xx.
Appendix 2 357
beginning of Theodore’s education. It was copied before the earliest datable

letter (Ep. 2) and appears to be the earliest piece in the correspondence
with Blemmydes and in the entire Laurentian collection.
Thematic cluster (Epp. 2 and 8): Constantine Klaudioupolites, metropolitan
bishop of Ephesos and patriarch-elect of Antioch (1241–43). Epp. 2 and 8 to
Blemmydes ridicule an anonymous metropolitan bishop of Ephesos. Ep. 2
describes him as a venal man who “wished to be a bishop over the eparchies of
Cilicia” – that is, the Greek orthodox patriarch of Antioch – but says his
ordination was postponed due to the death of the consecrator.34 Ep. 8 con-
tinues the story. Theodore notifies Blemmydes that he read on Wednesday of
Cheesefare Week the letter of resignation of a certain bishop, nicknamed
“Grand Hammerer” (megas sphyristes), from the sees of Ephesos and
Antioch.35 The letter was brought to the meeting of the court by his nephew
nicknamed “Little Hammerer” (smikros sphyristopoulos). The person about to
be ordained patriarch of Antioch in Ep. 2 was, therefore, also a metropolitan
bishop of Ephesos. According to Ep. 8, he wished to return to his homeland in
Herakleia in Thrace in “order to reside on Mount Ganos and converse in a
more hermitic fashion with John.” Mount Ganos, on the European side of the
Hellespont, had a well-known monastic community, and the resigning bishop
evidently wished to enter a monastery dedicated to John the Baptist. Epp. 10
and 11 continue to ridicule an anonymous metropolitan of Ephesos, although
these letters make clear that the individual has recently been ordained and is
about to assume his episcopal functions.
Scholars have traditionally interpreted all four letters (Epp. 2, 8, 10, and
11) as referring to the metropolitan of Ephesos, Nikephoros, a correspond-
ent of Theodore and briefly patriarch (1260) of Constantinople in exile.36
Theodore had strained relations with Nikephoros over a long period of
time, something that is seen both in letters addressed to him written during
his coemperorship and in a satirical sketch that he composed during his
sole reign (the fifth of his six essays).37 Yet the career of Nikephoros does
34
The region of Cilicia and the kingdom of Cilician Armenia formed part of the ecclesiastical
province of the patriarchate of Antioch. See Devreesse 1945; Korobeinikov 2003:202–05. Blem.,
Autobiographia, I, 72 (p. 36), refers to the Armenians in the area as “Cilicians.”
35
The hapax σφυριστής seems derived from σφῦρα, “hammer,” and the rare adjective σφυριστός,
“hammered,” attested in the hymnographic commentaries of Akakios Sabaites from the
Nicaean period. See LBJ, 7 (2011):1726. A similar use of allusive language is found in Ep. 11.
The individual who occupied the see of Ephesos is said to have had an “iron staff” (Psalm 2:9),
with which he “beat with a hammer” (ἐσφυρηλάτησε) his flock and other bishops.
36
See, for example, Heisenberg 1900:215.
37
Ep. 105, addressed to Nikephoros, is filled with irony. Ep. 108 mentions that Theodore has read
the bishop’s letters to John Vatatzes that offended the emperor and the patriarch. See also
358 Appendix 2
not correspond with the information found in Epp. 2 and 8. Nikephoros

Pamphilos, as was his full name, was an archdeacon in the imperial clergy
of John Vatatzes. He was one of the three candidates proposed by the
synod sometime between 1241 and 1243 for the vacancy in the office of
patriarch of Constantinople. John III Vatatzes, just like his son, disap-
proved of this choice: “How could someone tolerate him as patriarch when
one cannot do so as an archdeacon?”38 The emperor instead selected
another member of the imperial clergy, the head chaplain (protopappas)
Manuel, who was ordained between August and October 1243 as Patriarch
Manuel II (r. 1243–54).39 Nikephoros was compensated, probably in
1243 or 1244, with selection as the metropolitan bishop of Ephesos.40
Nikephoros’ career knew no election to the patriarchate of Antioch, subse-
quent resignation, or monastic vocation.
The target of Theodore’s critique in Epp. 2 and 8 emerges from a little-
known canonical text. Commenting on canons 3 of St. Cyril and 16 of the
Council in 861, convened by the patriarch Photios in the church of the
Holy Apostles, the metropolitan of Kyzikos, Theodore Skoutariotes
(second half of the thirteenth century and possibly identical with the
author of Synopsis chronike), pointed out that an erring bishop should
not be permitted to adopt the monastic habit in order to avoid an ecclesi-
astical sanction. One of the two recent examples he gave was the metro-
politan bishop of Ephesos, Constantine, who had adopted the monastic
habit under the name Cyril, but the synod of Patriarch Manuel decided to
recall him and subjected him to an unspecified sanction.41 The decision of
Ep. 32.4 (p. 41) addressed to Blemmydes. The satirical Essay 5 in V, f. 67r–v, has been edited
and translated by Agapitos and Angelov 2018. By contrast, Blemmydes has only good words to
say about Nikephoros in his Autobiography: “a real bishop, without pretense, without frills, and
without falsehood.”
38
Pach. I, 165.22–23.
39
Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos in PG, vol. 147, col. 465D; Laurent 1969:138–39.
40
On Nikephoros’ career, see Blem., Autobiographia, I, 68 (p. 34); Pach. I, 165.18–23. On his
name, see Darrouzès 1984:184. Blem., Autobiographia, I, 69.1 (p. 35) writes that Patriarch
Germanos’ death (1240) occurred before the appointment of Nikephoros as metropolitan
bishop of Ephesos.
41
Lauriotes 1901:54. Laurent, Regestes, 1327, doubted that the patriarch was Manuel II and
preferred instead Arsenios, but there is no reason to explain away the phrase ἐπὶ τοῦ
πατριάρχου κῦρ Μανουήλ. The other example, in addition to Constantine of Ephesos, is
Nicholas, the bishop of Vonditza in southern Epiros, who adopted the monastic habit and
resided “for years” in the monastery of St. Michael in Anaplous, until Patriarch Arsenios
and his synod recalled him from his monastery and restored him to his bishopric without the
right to consecrate. Laurent, Regestes, 1369, dated this episode to second patriarchate of
Arsenios (1261–64), yet it could have occurred during his first patriarchate (1254–60) as well,
because the monastery of St. Michael in Anaplous on the Bosporus functioned during the
Appendix 2 359
the resigning metropolitan of Ephesos to become a monk on Mount Ganos

fits closely with the canonical commentary. The patriarch must be Manuel
II (r. 1243–54) rather than Manuel I (r. 1217–22), because no bishop of
Ephesos by the name of Constantine is known during the latter’s patri-
archate.42 The metropolitan Constantine in question was none other than
Constantine Klaudioupolites, a vengeful personal enemy of Nikephoros
Blemmydes. According to the latter’s autobiography, Klaudioupolites was a
different character than his predecessor, the metropolitan of Ephesos,
Manasses, who had initiated Blemmydes in monastic life and eventually
appointed him as abbot of the monastery of St. Gregory the Miracle
Worker near Ephesos. Klaudioupolites gave credence to slanders circulated
by Blemmydes’ student Krateros, who charged his teacher with stealing
money from the estate of the deceased Manasses. Blemmydes was cleared
by Hikanatos, the governor of the theme of Thrakesion, but Klaudioupo-
lites kept giving him trouble and forced him to relocate to a monastery on
the island of Samos. In addition, Klaudioupolites took seriously the accus-
ations made by the deacon Leo Adralestos that Blemmydes had murdered
Manasses and was a Manichean. Only after the emperor John Vatatzes
intervened and banned Klaudioupolites from entering in the monastery of
St. Gregory the Miracle Worker did Blemmydes return from Samos.43
Subsequently, another governor of the Thrakesion theme, John Komnenos
Kantakouzenos, connived with Klaudioupolites and renewed the charges of
embezzlement. Blemmydes was detained and his residence was searched
for a hidden treasure. Once again, John Vatatzes offered support and
banned the metropolitan from Blemmydes’ properties. The emperor then
provided for Blemmydes’ seaborne voyage to Mt. Athos and the Balkans.44
The careers of the governors (doukes) of the Thrakesion theme point to
Klaudioupolites’ term in office in Ephesos: he was a metropolitan bishop from
1238–39 until at least 1241, the earliest possible time for Kantakouzenos to
have assumed the post.45 As we will see shortly, Klaudioupolites seems to have
become the patriarch-elect of Antioch in 1241 and submitted his resignation
period of the Latin rule and received donations from the emperor John Vatatzes. See Synopsis
chronike, 509.3–4.
42
See the survey of metropolitans of Ephesos by Pargoire 1905.
43
Blem., Autobiographia, I, 50–57 (pp. 27–30).
44
Blem., Autobiographia, I, 58–59 (pp. 30–31).
45
The documentary evidence has been surveyed by Ahrweiler 1965:142–45. Hikanatos is attested
as governor in July 1239. The previous governor is reported as deceased in September 1238.
Between March and May 1240, the governor was Manuel Kontophre. In June 1241 the function
was performed by George Kammytzovoukis. See MM, IV, 254–55 (Dölger-Wirth, Regesten,
1772). Kantakouzenos is attested as governor already on November 1, 1242 (see the document
360 Appendix 2
in 1242 or 1243, when he took the monastic habit. He was subsequently

recalled, disciplined by Patriarch Manuel II, and replaced as metropolitan
bishop of Ephesos by the archdeacon of the imperial clergy, Nikephoros.
Ep. 2: autumn 1241. This letter describes how “the person who wished to
be a bishop over the eparchies of Cilicia” (Klaudioupolites) – a greedy
clergyman practicing simony – was about to receive ordination when his
consecrator passed away. The consecrator was the patriarch of Constan-
tinople who normally ordained the patriarch of Antioch in this period.46
Given that Klaudioupolites was metropolitan of Ephesos from 1238–39 to
at least 1241, the date of the letter can be narrowed down to the deaths of
two successive patriarchs of Constantinople in exile: Patriarch Germanos
II, who died in the summer of 1240, and his successor, Methodios, who
passed away in the autumn of 1241.47 Methodios’ death is more probable
insofar as we can judge from the ecclesiastical negotiations with the king of
Cilician Armenia and the Armenian katholikos, negotiations known from
three letters sent to Armenia by the patriarchate in Nicaea over a period of
almost ten years.48 A letter addressed by Patriarch Germanos shortly
before his death (Vitalien Laurent dates the letter to 1239 or 1240) to the
katholikos of Armenia, Constantine, mentions the arrival of an embassy
sent by King Hetoum I carrying a letter from the patriarch of Antioch, who
encouraged the negotiations and was still alive.49 It is unlikely, therefore,
that Germanos arranged for the ordination of a new patriarch of Antioch.
Germanos dispatched the metropolitan of Melitene, John, to Cilician
Armenia. On his return, after Germanos had passed away, an embassy
arrived from Armenia. This Armenian embassy evidently came in the
spring of 1241, because in May 1241 the patriarchal synod, in the absence
of a patriarch, addressed a letter to the king of Armenia, Hetoum, and
dispatched the metropolitan of Melitene back to Armenia.50 Either John of
Melitene or the Armenian embassy could have brought the news of the
death of the patriarch of Antioch, a key intermediary in the exchange.
Regrettably, little is known about the history of the orthodox (Melkite)
patriarchate of Antioch in the early 1240s. The patriarch who passed away
published by Wilson and Darrouzès 1968:20–21). Pargoire (1905:289–90) dated the ending of
Klaudioupolites’ episcopate to “1239 or a little later.”
46
On the twelfth–century practice, see Pitsakis 1991:92–94.
47
Laurent (1969:136–39) based these dates mostly from the patriarchal pinakes.
48
For the dossier of the three letters, see 254, n. 120.
49
Lagopates 1913:354–57; Bartikian 2002:63–71 (Laurent, Regestes, 1290).
50
The letter of May 1241, see Vat. gr. 1455, ff. 27r–29v. The exchange of embassies in the 1240s is
summarized in Patriarch Manuel II’s letter of the winter of 1247–48. See Bartikian 2002:79–81.
Appendix 2 361
may have been the long-serving Symeon, who divided his time between
Antioch, Cilician Armenia, and the empire of Nicaea. Symeon is last
attested in the period 1234–36, and the next known patriarch, David, is
documented in 1246.51 In the second half of 1241, Germanos’ successor as
patriarch of Constantinople in exile was ordained: Methodios, the abbot of
the monastery of Hyakinthos in Nicaea. Methodios served for only three
months before he passed away.52 He evidently intended to ordain Con-
stantine Klaudioupolites as the new patriarch of Antioch. As we learn from
Ep. 2, he died before performing the inauguration ritual.
Ep. 8: early 1242 or early 1243. This letter dating to the pre-Lenten
season gives the next stage in the story: Klaudioupolites resigns from the
metropolitan bishopric of Ephesos and his position as patriarch-elect of
Antioch. In his letter of resignation, the repenting bishop expressed a
desire to take up residence as a monk on Mount Ganos. He also wished
to return to, and even become the bishop of, nearby Herakleia in Thrace,
his native city. One wonders whether Klaudioupolites’ decision to become
a monk with the name Cyril was voluntary, given that John Vatatzes took
the side of Blemmydes in the dispute between them. Klaudioupolites was
later disciplined by the new patriarch, Manuel II, whose appointment
between August and October 1243 is a terminus ante quem for the letter.
This dating fits with the mention in the letter of Blemmydes’ new monastic
foundation at Emathia, called here ἡσυχαστήριον, which is also how
Blemmydes describes it. In the letter Theodore reports hearsay to the effect
that this site was at “a difficult place, hard to access” (information con-
firmed by Blemmydes) and sends barley for Blemmydes’ horses. It is
known from Blemmydes’ autobiography that the building of the monastery
at Emathia took seven years and nine months. Joseph Munitiz has hypo-
thetically dated its foundation to the summer of 1241.53
51
For example, in 1206–07 Symeon was in Antioch and in 1217 in Armenia. See Cahen
1940:612, 619; Rey 1896:388–89. He accepted the primacy of the papacy, because a
manuscript note in an Athonite codex states that a decision of the synod of Patriarch Manuel
I reappointed him to his office (Laurent, Regestes, 1220, dates the note to 1217–18). Symeon
is last attested in 1234–36. He took part in the religious disputes in Nymphaion in 1234 and
gave his permission for the elevation of the rank of the Bulgarian church to that of an
autocephalous patriarchate in 1235. The metropolitan of Corfu Bardanes wrote to him in the
winter of 1235–36 when he was surrounded by schismatics (Armenians?). See Golubovich
1919:444; Laurent, Regestes, 1282; Hoeck and Loenertz 1965:205–06. Pope Innocent IV sent a
letter on August 9, 1246, to David, the earliest known successor of Symeon. See Haluščinskyj
and Wojnar 1962:74–75; and also Cahen 1940:684, nn. 15–16; Nasrallah 1968:4, n. 10.
52
Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos in PG, vol. 147, col. 465D; Laurent 1969:137–38.
53
Munitiz 1988:23–24.
362 Appendix 2
Thematic cluster (Epp. 10 and 11): Arrival of Nikephoros as the new

metropolitan of Ephesos (late 1243–44). These letters, addressed to Blem-
mydes, ridicule a newly ordained metropolitan bishop of Ephesos. Ep. 10 is
a playful commentary on the dream vision of Nebuchadnezzar in the second
chapter of the book of Daniel. Ep. 11 derides the greed and lack of education of
the bishop about to arrive in Ephesos. The man could be either Constantine
Klaudioupolites, in the eventuality that he was simultaneously subjected to
ecclesiastical punishment and temporarily reinstated, or his successor Nike-
phoros. The expression “spirit of the North” (Ep. 11.11–12, based on Ezekiel
1:4) can allude either to Klaudioupolites returning from Mount Ganos or the
archdeacon of the imperial clergy, Nikephoros, coming to Ephesos from
Nicaea, the seat of the patriarchate. The letter makes an allusion to the
troubles of Blemmydes during Klaudioupolites’ term of office in Ephesos.
Blemmydes writes in his Autobiography that his accusers even searched the
cesspit of his monastery in the hope of finding hidden gold.54 In a similar
manner, Ep. 11.16–17 states that “all the power of the garbage-collectors will
shudder before his (that is, the metropolitan’s) face, and the bows of the abbots
are to be destroyed” (Ps. 36:15). To whom, then, does this letter refer? The
recognizable faults of Klaudioupolites, such as his arrogance and fondness for
money, are criticisms Theodore levied against other ecclesiastics. Two con-
siderations tilt the balance in favor of Nikephoros. First, Theodore creates the
impression of a new incumbent: “the person who is from now onward the
metropolitan of Ephesos.”55 Second, Theodore describes the metropolitan as a
man who has embraced “pure, genuine philosophy” and stands above the filth
of grammar, poetry, and “Aristotelian confusion.”56 In a letter addressed to
Nikephoros filled with unease and tension (Ep. 105), Theodore referred to the
religious learning of his addressee and revealed that he himself was different:
he knew Plato and kept reading philosophy. At the same time, he assured
Nikephoros that he valued the Holy Scriptures more highly and that “inner
learning” was true wisdom.
Ep. 49 (1241–46). This long and fascinating letter to Akropolites, which
opens the dossier of epistles addressed to him in the Laurentian collection,
refers to the beginnings of Theodore’s studies with him. The letter is a
veiled appeal to Akropolites to take over Theodore’s unfinished education
in philosophy. It describes a celestial vision, in which Lady Virtue tells
Theodore that he has not yet adopted the ways of philosophy, reason, and
54
Blem., Autobiographia, I, 61 (pp. 31–32); Blemmydes’ letter to Patriarch Manuel II, in Blem.
Ep., 327.63–64. See Munitiz 1988:78; Munitiz 2003:372.
55 56
Ep. 11.57 (p. 16). Ep. 11.41–45 (p. 16).
Appendix 2 363
intelligence (lines 10–17). The date of the letter, therefore, depends on the
timing of Akropolites beginning to tutor the heir to the throne. Scholars
have traditionally adopted Heisenberg’s view that Theodore Laskaris took
lessons from Akropolites after the latter’s return from the Balkans in
1246.57 However, given that Theodore received instruction under
Blemmydes from 1238 or 1239 until about 1241 (see Chapter 4,
pp. 81–82), it is implausible that the heir to the throne would have waited
several years before attaching himself to Blemmydes’ student Akropolites,
who was already a teacher. The letter was most probably written not long
after 1241, with 1246 being a terminus ante quem.
Thematic cluster (Epp. 21, 22, and 26): Invitations to Blemmydes
(1244–46?). These three letters bid Blemmydes to present himself at court
without mentioning the reason. The dating can be only hypothetical and
hence is followed by question marks.
Epp. 21 and 22: 1244–45 (?). These two letters – of similar length and
copied next to each other – ask Blemmydes to appear before the emperor
John Vatatzes. Blemmydes is called “our father and teacher” (Ep. 21.6). His
presence at the court is said to be capable of bringing “a great profit” (Ep.
22.7–8). Costas Constantinides has connected the two epistles with the
offer of a teaching post extended by Patriarch Manuel II and emanating
from the emperor.58 The offer is known solely from Blemmydes’ letter of
response to the patriarch, in which he resolutely declined the honor to
head an education establishment for boys and girls.59 Blemmydes notes
that he faced an ecclesiastical penalty if he did not accept the appointment,
which fits with the strong language in one of Theodore’s letters to Blem-
mydes (Ep. 21.2: ἀναγκάζομεν). In the letter to the patriarch, Blemmydes
points out that he returned from his journey in the Balkans (1242–44) only
because he was summoned (again, a noteworthy correspondence with
Theodore’s epistles), vents his frustration with the behavior of his former
students Krateros and Romanos, and criticizes the opportunities available
to educated individuals in the empire of Nicaea.60 The teaching offer
extended to Blemmydes has traditionally been dated to 1244.61 If this
57 58
For Heisenberg’s view, see Akrop. II, VII–VIII. Constantinides 1982:14 n. 54, 15 n. 58.
59
The letter has been published by Festa, Ep., Appendix III, 325–29, and translated by Munitiz
2003.
60
Festa, Ep., Appendix III, 325.5–7, 328.92–329.117. On the chronology of Blemmydes’ journey
to the Balkans, see 269, n. 107.
61
Laurent, Regestes, 1305 (the teaching offer of 1244 is seen as a compensation after Blemmydes did
not become the patriarch: see Blem., Autobiographia, I, 69 [p. 35]). The teaching offer has been
dated similarly to 1244 by Munitiz 2003:369. Constantinides (1982:14–15) preferred 1245–46.
364 Appendix 2
was the reason why Theodore wrote the two urgent letters of request, as it
seems likely, then the two letters date to 1244–45.
Ep. 26: 1246–47 (?). This letter to Blemmydes mentions Theodore wel-
coming John Vatatzes and George Akropolites back to the Hellespont, and
once again invites Blemmydes to the court. A philosophical discussion with
Akropolites is said to have taken place, which suggests that instruction under
his direction had already begun. Costas Constantinides has dated the letter
to late 1246, when John Vatatzes and his secretary Akropolites campaigned
in the Balkans and secured the peaceful territorial expansion of the empire of
Nicaea over large areas in Macedonia and Thrace. The date is possible,
yet not certain, because the letter makes no reference to this historic event.
John Vatatzes campaigned in Thrace in 1247, as well, and Akropolites
may have accompanied the senior emperor in the Balkans on another
unknown occasion – for example, when he went on a diplomatic mission
to Constantinople.62
Ep. 107: 1243–49. Following a petition by Blemmydes, abbot of the
monastery of St. Gregory the Miracle Worker, this letter, addressed to
the metropolitan bishop of Ephesos, Nikephoros, annuls the illegal sale of
an agricultural plot of land (named Anachoma) by a former abbot of the
monastery to a cleric of the metropolitan church of Ephesos. The reason
for the illegality of the sale is not given. The monastery (that is, its abbot
Blemmydes) was to reimburse the buyer for the money paid at the time of
the transaction. In case the land plot had been converted into a vineyard,
the monastery was not to be asked to reimburse the buyer for the agricul-
tural improvements, because the profit from the vineyard already provided
sufficient compensation. The termini for the letter are the appointment of
Nikephoros as metropolitan of Ephesos (the earliest possible date is the
second half of 1243, the time of ordination of Patriarch Manuel II) and the
transfer of Blemmydes to his new foundation at Emathia, which has been
dated to around the spring of 1249.63 The letter uses the technical term
“ordinance” (πρόσταγμα), a type of imperial document, even though it
lacks the usual diplomatic features.
Ep. 18: 1252. This letter to Blemmydes mentions the return of an embassy
from the papacy that brought proposals for a union of the churches. These
proposals can be identified as Pope Innocent IV’s response to the Nicaean
chapters of recognition and petition (capitula recognitionis et petitionis)
resulting from the discussion with John of Parma in Nymphaion in the
62
Constantinides 1982:14 n. 57, 15 n. 58, 17–18. See the call for caution by Macrides 2007:10.
63
Munitiz 1988:24. Dölger-Wirth, Regesten, 1823, date the letter to the period 1241 (?)–48.
Appendix 2 365
spring of 1250.64 The metropolitan bishop of Sardis, Andronikos, is reported

in the letter to have been particularly enthusiastic about accepting papal
primacy. Andronikos took part in the Nicaean delegations to the papacy in
1250–52 and in 1253–54.65 In the summer of 1250, the first Nicaean
embassy departed to meet Innocent in Lyons, but was detained in Apulia
in the aftermath of Frederick II’s death (December 1250) for a year and a
half; it finally met Innocent IV in Perugia in early 1252 and then returned to
the empire of Nicaea with the pope’s answers.66 This is the time of compos-
ition of Ep. 18. A reference to the return of the second Nicaean embassy of
1253–54 to Pope Innocent IV is impossible. Ep. 18 dates before the embassy
of Berthold of Hohenburg, but the second embassy came back in the middle
of 1254 when Berthold had already departed.67 The mention of a shipwreck
in the author’s life, with which the letter opens, is probably a reference to the
death of his wife in the same year.
Ep. 118: 1252. This letter, to the metropolitan bishop of Philadelphia,
Phokas, mentions the return “from Europe” of Andronikos of Sardis, an
ambassador to the papacy. As in the above case, the first Nicaean embassy
of 1250–52 is the only possibility, because the letter predates the embassy
of Berthold of Hohenburg. The letter was dispatched from Anatolia to the
Balkans, because in 1252 Phokas accompanied John Vatatzes during the
long campaign against Michael of Epiros.68
Thematic cluster (Epp. 24, 57–61, 72, 94, 132): Death of his wife Elena
(spring or early summer 1252). A number of letters in the Laurentian
collection – one to Blemmydes, five to Akropolites, one to the patriarch
Manuel II, and one to the monk Akakios – communicate, or echo, Theo-
dore’s deep distress caused by the death of his wife Elena. She passed away
sometime between Christmas 1250 (the birth of her son John Laskaris) and
the autumn of 1253 (Berthold of Hohenburg’s embassy mentioned by the
heading of Theodore’s Moral Pieces).69 The precise chronology emerges
from Theodore’s letters to Akropolites.70 Four consecutively copied letters
(Epp. 57–60) reveal the shock of the author after the sudden passing of his
wife. According to Ep. 58, Theodore’s grief is made even more unbearable
due to the absence of his father and Akropolites. The author alludes to his
deceased spouse: “My resplendent light has set in a dark abode, leaving to
64 65
Franchi 1981:83–87, 193–99. Franchi 1981:136–7, 232 n. 366.
66
Franchi 1981:180–92, 214–15.
67
Franchi (1981:249) dates the return to June or July 1254 on the basis of a papal document.
68 69
Akrop. I, §49 (p. 92.4). On the birth of John Laskaris, see 289, n. 5.
70
The chronology has already been discussed by Angelov, Mor. P., 237–41.
366 Appendix 2
me no hope of its rising.”71 He asks rhetorically: “Where is the flower of

my youth? Where is the beehive of the words and wishes of my heart?
Everything has disappeared, everything has gone leaving me behind truly
alone.”72 Ep. 59 presents Akropolites and John Vatatzes still being away
from Theodore. Akropolites has already comforted the author in writing.
A similar reference to a comforting epistle from Akropolites is made in
Ep. 61, which must form part of the thematic cluster. In Ep. 59, Theodore
writes that by the command of his father he has left Nymphaion (the site of
his mourning), changed his clothes (his mourning clothes), and resumed
eating meat. Theodore was already on the move, refers to his departure
from the “three-gated” Thebe (Atramyttion) for the “celebrated Troy,” and
mentions his expectation of laying his eyes on the Hellespont, which, he
states, separated him from Akropolites.
The military campaign against Epiros in the years 1252 and 1253 is the only
lengthy period spent by John Vatatzes and Akropolites in the Balkans in the
period between Christmas 1250 and autumn 1253. The emperor left Anatolia
in 1252, wintered in the Balkans, and returned to Anatolia in the late autumn
of 1253 immediately after the public trial of Michael Palaiologos in Philippi in
the autumn of that year.73 In Ep. 58 Theodore gives rhetorical emphasis to his
sorrow with the proverb “things last year are always better.” The Byzantine
year began on September 1 and, therefore, Elena could have died either before
September 1, 1252, or September 1, 1253. September 1252 is the only valid
terminus ante quem, because otherwise Epp. 59–61, as well as Akropolites’
comforting letters, would have had to have been written within the span of
two months at most, which is impossible. Furthermore, none of Epp. 57–61
mentions Theodore’s expectation of meeting his correspondent, which con-
trasts with letters to Akropolites in which the author rejoices at his imminent
arrival (Epp. 83–85). The death of his wife Elena in Nymphaion must have
occurred in the spring or early summer of 1252, soon after the beginning of
the campaign. Theodore felt incapacitated by towering grief and his sorrowful
messages reached his father. The insistence of John Vatatzes (Ep. 59) that his
son ought to stop mourning and resume his usual lifestyle is explicable by his
concern that the junior coemperor should be effective in performing his duties
during his father’s absence.
Ep. 57: 1252. This letter to Akropolites mentions a divine retribution
that has befallen the author who declares his wish to die, just as in the
dramatic closure of the Moral Pieces.
71 72 73
Ep. 58.14–15 (p. 87). Ep. 58.18–19 (p. 87). See Chapter 8, pp. 123–24.
Appendix 2 367
Ep. 58: 1252. This letter to Akropolites alludes to the passing of his wife
and mentions the absence of both Akropolites and his father.
Ep. 59: 1252. This letter reveals that Akropolites has already comforted
Theodore, who asks him to keep him informed whether his father has been
pleased by the fact that he has left Nymphaion, changed his clothes, and
resumed eating meat.
Ep. 60: 1252. This brief letter to Akropolites speaks of inconsolable
sorrow and thoughts of death.
Ep. 24: 1252. This letter to Blemmydes echoes the sorrowful mood of
Epp. 57–60 and is especially close in spirit and motifs to the Moral Pieces.
Noteworthy are the mentions of his recent separation from his soul mate, a
tomb, and the author’s dramatic wish to die.
Ep. 61: 1252–53. This letter to Akropolites speaks of a “flood of sorrow”
that Akropolites had encouraged Theodore to cure with frequent bathing.
The letter continues the theme of Epp. 57–60, but it postdates these letters,
because it implies a second comforting epistle by Akropolites.
Ep. 132: 1252–53. This letter to the monk Akakios refers to the great
sorrow of the author, which Akakios had tried to dispel in a consolatory
work, and resembles Ep. 72 in arguing that sorrow can lead to philosoph-
ical thinking and knowledge of God.
Ep. 72: 1252–53. This letter to Akropolites is related to Epp. 57–61 to the
same addressee and makes the further point that sorrow has had a sobering
effect on the author, leading him to philosophy.
Ep. 94: 1253. This comforting letter to Patriarch Manuel II is provoked
by the death of the latter’s son and mentions that the patriarch had offered
solace to the author one year earlier on a similar occasion. The letter,
therefore, was written one year after Elena’s death.
Long letter to Akropolites (Tartaglia, Op. rhet., 2–22): 1253. Toward the
end of the letter, Theodore mentions Akropolites’ worries about his desire
for flight from the world (κόσμος). Akropolites had evidently understood
that the heir to the throne intended to become a monk. Theodore dis-
missed the concerns by stating that flight from the world does not
necessarily mean a monastic vocation.74 This is not the first time that
Theodore spoke about flight from the world in a letter to Akropolites.75
However, the exchange reflected in the letter seems to be linked with the
death of his wife and, in particular, with the expression of preference for a
life of solitude and contemplation in his Response to Some Friends Pressing
74 75
Tartaglia, Op. rhet., 19.415–21.463. See Ep. 54.22 (p. 79).
368 Appendix 2
Him to Find a Bride (1252–53). This dating is supported by the allusion in

the long letter to the slanderous machinations of Theodore Philes
(see below).
Thematic cluster (Epp. 36–39, 77–78, 80, long letter to Akropolites): the
Theodore Philes affair (1253). A series of letters to Blemmydes and Akro-
polites relates to the bitter conflict between the heir to the throne and
Theodore Philes, who was appointed between 1248 and 1252 as the
Nicaean governor of Thessalonica and the region around it holding the
title of praitor. Philes succeeded the deceased megas domestikos Androni-
kos Palaiologos in this position.76 The outlines of the conflict emerge most
vividly before our eyes in Epp. 77, 78, and 80, all addressed to Akropolites.
Ep. 77 is a satire filled with sexual innuendo lampooning a powerful man
residing in “present-day Hellas” and the “land of the Myrmidons,” whom
Theodore Laskaris blames for the murder of his close associate Tribides. In
Ep. 78 we discover the identity of the derided individual (Philes) and learn
that he has charged Theodore Laskaris with an amorous liaison (eros). No
specific details of this allegation are given. The coemperor vows in Ep. 78
to punish Philes and notifies Akropolites that he has complained to his
father, the senior emperor John Vatatzes. The sequel is found in Ep. 80, a
famous letter in which Theodore Laskaris shares his impressions from a
visit to the ruins of ancient Pergamon. Here, he refers in passing at the end
to an unspecified sanction by the senior emperor against Philes, nick-
named “scion of goats” (tragophylon). When did the exchange of accus-
ations between Theodore Laskaris and Theodore Philes take place? A clue
can be found in his long letter to Akropolites, datable to 1253. Addressing
his tutor, who was in the Balkans at the time, Theodore speaks of a
scheming and deceitful person trying to drive a wedge between the two
of them. He was confident that Akropolites would ignore the calumny.77
This calumniator must be the governor of Thessalonica, Theodore Philes,
with whom Theodore Laskaris was trading accusations. It was, therefore, in
1253 – at a time when John Vatatzes and his generals were in Macedonia
during the campaign against Michael of Epiros and visited Thessalonica –
that the conflict between Theodore Laskaris and Theodore Philes flared up.
Four letters to Blemmydes (Epp. 36–39) pertaining to the Philes affair
also date to 1253. In Ep. 36 Theodore writes that he read allegations against
76
Acrop. I, §46 (p. 84.15–16); Macrides 2007:99, 242 n. 2, 244 n. 7.
77
Tartaglia, Op. rhet., 7.124–26. Theodore wrote: “Who would say or do something against me
and you would not devour him? For there is no one who can do this whom you will not tear
apart. Therefore, nobody approaching you will say anything against me.”
Appendix 2 369
him composed in the form of defamatory verses (tetrastichs) near Nym-

phaion and professes his innocence. In Ep. 37 he asks Blemmydes to
“examine and forgive.” In Ep. 38 Theodore dramatically declares his
willingness to go through an ordeal by red-hot iron, which was sometimes
used in the thirteenth century for the judicial examination of cases of
adultery.78 Finally, we see in Ep. 39 Theodore rejoicing as he has regained
the favor and trust of Blemmydes who has finally decided to ignore the
slanderous allegation. The following convergences between Epp. 77 and
78 to Akropolites and the four letters to Blemmydes indicate that the
unnamed accuser of Ep. 36 is Philes. First, the letters to Akropolites and
Blemmydes use similar language in referring to “a stupid man” (λῆρος)
who speaks “stupidities” (ληρήματα): see Ep. 36.33 (p. 45), 39.16 (p. 49),
78.23 (p. 105). Second, Theodore informs Blemmydes (Ep. 36.20–23
[p. 45]) that his accuser has charged him with a type of offense of which
the opponent himself is guilty, which relates to the sexual slurs about
Philes in Ep. 77 to Akropolites. Third, in Ep. 78.12 (p. 105) Theodore
complains to Akropolites of his teacher’s unforgiving harshness, which is
Blemmydes’ attitude emerging from the three letters to him.
Ep. 180: early to mid 1253. This epistle, addressed to Mouzalon, is the
only firmly datable piece among the forty-three letters to Mouzalon attrib-
uted by a manuscript note (placed after Ep. 192 in Laur., Conventi
soppressi 627) to the period before Theodore’s “full completeness of
imperial rule.” Ep. 180 mentions, among other things, a discussion at the
court with members of the Lancia family, including Galvano Lancia and
Boniface of Agliano. These are the Lancias expelled by King Conrad IV in
the early months of 1253, who fled en masse to Byzantine Anatolia and
sought the assistance of their relative, the empress Constanza-Anna.79 We
learn from the letter that there were disagreements among them as to the
best course of action and that Theodore prevented them from traveling to
Thessalonica (evidently in order to meet the senior emperor) and even to
the city of Nicaea.
Ep. 125: autumn 1253. This letter to Andronikos, metropolitan of Sardis,
refers to the arrival of Berthold of Hohenburg and explicitly mentions the
autumn season.
Ep. 40: autumn 1253. This letter to Blemmydes describes a disputation
with Berthold of Hohenburg that took place in one of the Anatolian palaces.
78
See Chapter 6, p. 122.
79
On the date of their flight to Nicaea, see Chapter 7, p. 140.
370 Appendix 2
Thematic cluster (Epp. 83–86): Return of John Vatatzes and Akropolites

from the Balkans (late autumn 1253). These four letters conclude the
epistolary dossier addressed to Akropolites in the Laurentian collection
and focus on the encounter in Asia Minor between Theodore and the
returning senior emperor John Vatatzes accompanied by Akropolites. Theo-
dore filled Epp. 83–84 with discussions of geometry and mechanics aimed at
impressing his teacher Akropolites. Ep. 83.18–21 encourages Akropolites
and John Vatatzes (still in Nicaea as Ep. 84 explicitly mentions) to take the
direct route and be reunited with the author: Theodore is evidently in
Nymphaion or Magnesia. According to Ep. 84, Theodore has been notified
that the senior emperor has left Nicaea and has ordered Theodore to come
and greet him. Theodore has already embarked on the journey. The expres-
sion ἔστ’ ἂν τοῖς τῶν μετεωρίων ὁρίοις πλησιάσειας may be a reference to a
meeting point at the fortress of Meteorion along the main route from Nicaea
to Magnesia. Ep. 85 is an expression of joy at the imminent encounter. In
Ep. 86 Theodore sends his confidant Mouzalon to do obeisance to the senior
emperor, announcing that he himself was about to arrive.
Ep. 183: late autumn 1253. This letter to Mouzalon announces that
Theodore has dispatched his teacher – evidently Akropolites, who has just
returned from the campaign in the Balkans – to see Mouzalon at an
undisclosed location. The season of composition of Ep. 183 emerges from
Epp. 184–185, with which it is closely related, and from the arrival of
Akropolites from the Balkan campaign in the late autumn. It would
appear, therefore, that at least some of the pre-1254 letters to Mouzalon
were arranged chronologically. Ep. 180 can be dated securely to 1253 and
Ep. 184 dates to December 12, 1253. The late autumn of 1254 is impossible,
because of the emperor’s accession in November 1254 (the cut-off point,
indicated by a manuscript note, lies between Ep. 192 and Ep. 193).
Ep. 184: December 12, 1253. This letter informs Mouzalon of the
improvement of the weather after a storm and mentions the commemor-
ation of St. Spyridon, which falls on December 12 in the Byzantine
liturgical calendar. The December date is also suggested by the allusion
to the forthcoming feast of the Nativity of Christ (the expression used is
ἔλευσις τοῦ Kυρίου).
Ep. 185: December 1253 or winter 1254. This brief letter mentions the
return of Akropolites (see Ep. 183), who has already met with Mouzalon
and has brought the joyful news of their encounter.
Ep. 187: January–October 1254. This letter of dedication of Representa-
tion of the World, or Life (first redaction), is probably to be dated to this
period due to the chronological sequence of the letters.
Appendix 2 371
Ep. 193: November–December 1254. This letter is the first one after the
manuscript note in Laur., Convent soppressi 627 referring to the emperor’s
accession and therefore dates after November 3, 1254. It conveys the
author’s preoccupations as the reigning emperor after the major transition.80
Ep. 194: c. December 12, 1254. This letter, which precedes the letters
from the Bulgarian front line, invites Mouzalon to Nicaea – probably in
order to attend the emperor’s advisory council mentioned by Akropolites
and Synopsis chronike. Mouzalon is known to have advocated a surprise
winter counterattack against the Bulgarians, contrary to the advice Theo-
dore received from his great uncles Michael and Manuel Laskaris.81 The
mention of St. Spyridon suggests a date of around December 12. The letter
opens with enigmatic references to plots and opposition against the
emperor.
Ep. 195: December 1254–January 1255. This letter renews the invitation
to Mouzalon. Mention is made of the winter season and the difficult travel
conditions.
Thematic cluster (Epp. 199–210): Letters during the Bulgarian campaign
(1255–56).
Theodore addressed more than ten letters to Mouzalon from the front
line. The ordering of the letters follows the known sequence of events
during the campaign against the Bulgarian tsar Michael Asen.82 We see
Theodore crossing the Hellespont and entering Thrace (Ep. 199), fighting
with the Bulgarians, setting camp, and marching westward (Epp. 200–04),
and summarizing his achievements before returning to Asia Minor at the
end of the first year of campaigning (Ep. 205).
Ep. 198: winter 1255 (after February 1). According to this letter, the time
for battles has now arrived. The emperor appears to be bound for the
Hellespont, together with the army.
Ep. 199: winter 1255 (after February 1). This letter presents the emperor
as having reached Thrace (“the western fields”) and thanking St. Tryphon
for his miracle with the winter lilies in Nicaea. Theodore evidently left
Nicaea on or after the feast day of Tryphon (February 1). Noteworthy are
the complaints he makes against his simpleminded military companions
and about the motley ethnic composition of the army.
80
A loose English translation can be found in Gardner 1912:307.
81
Akrop. I, §55 (pp. 109–11). Details unreported by Akropolites are found in Synopsis chronike,
513.5–514.15.
82
The letters have been discussed in more detail by Angelov 2013b:284–89.
372 Appendix 2
Ep. 200: winter 1255. This letter speaks of a victory and confesses the
author’s unawareness of the identity of his enemies, who have fled into the
mountains. The advancing Nicaean troops in the winter of 1255 defeated
the surprised watch posts of the Bulgarians in Thrace who, along with the
Bulgarian tsar, fled to the Haimos Mountains.83
Ep. 201: winter 1255. This letter mentions Theodore’s expectation of
arriving at Kryvous (Krivo) and Stenimachos, which is known to have
occurred in the winter of 1255 after the battle with Michael Asen’s army
mentioned in the previous letter.84
Ep. 202: summer 1255. This emotional letter complains of the scorching
heat at the army camp on the Maritsa River, which the author contrasts to
the freezing cold weather at the beginning of the campaign.
Ep. 203: summer 1255. This letter accompanies the gift to George
Mouzalon of a handsome horse bred in Albania. Its date emerges from
its position between Ep. 202 and Ep. 204, as well as the mention of the
campaign against the Bulgarians.
Ep. 204: summer 1255. This letter, the longest one written during the
campaign, narrates recent events during the war and mentions the author’s
current location: Philippi along the via Egnatia. Theodore alludes to the
experiences of St. Paul in Philippi and describes (lines 43–45) the sight in
front of his eyes: the Rhodope Mountains (“the impassable Bulgarian moun-
tains of folly”), the mountain of Orpheus (Mount Pangaion), and the land of
Philip and Alexander (Macedonia). The author writes that he is in a hurry to
reach Serres and hopes that in four days he will arrive in Melnik, achieving a
victory over the Bulgarians. The historical context is well known from the
History of Akropolites. In the spring of 1255, Theodore Laskaris had
requested the support of the troops stationed in Macedonia. The generals
Alexios Strategopoulos and Constantine Tornikes advanced from Serres
toward Tzepaina (Tsepena) in the Rhodope Mountains, but turned back after
they were frightened during the march, abandoning their baggage to Bulgar-
ian shepherds and swineherds. They refused to follow Theodore’s order to
resume the march.85 Ep. 204 lampoons the cowardly conduct of the two
generals, making a general reference to their families: “the lawless
Strategopouloi” and “ill-famed Tornikai” (lines 52–56, 109–20). Theodore
writes that “the disobedience of the lawless individuals, leaving the army
83
Akrop. I, §56 (pp. 111.21–112.16).
84
Akrop. I, §57 (p. 113.19–25) explicitly mentions Stenimachos, but not Kryvous.
85
Akrop. I, §57 (p. 114.2–19).
Appendix 2 373
alone, made the Bulgarian dogs devastate our lands, and for this reason now a
beginning of troubles fell upon us” (lines 59–61). Mention is made of the
“lawless praitor,” that is, Theodore Philes (line 106) who is evidently still in
office. According to Akropolites, the rebellion of Dragotas in the region of
Melnik in Macedonia and his siege of the Nicaean garrison in the town forced
Theodore Laskaris to lead a relief expedition. Setting off from Adrianople
sometime in the summer of 1255, he managed in twelve days to reach Serres,
defeat the Bulgarians at the Rupel Pass (where Dragotas perished), and raise
the siege of Melnik. Subsequently, Theodore visited Thessalonica and made a
tour of western Macedonia, returning to Serres. Ep. 204 was written during a
stopover in Philippi before Theodore reached Serres and Melnik.86
Ep. 205: late autumn 1255. This letter celebrates the achievements of the
campaign in 1255. It must date to a time not long before Theodore crossed
the Hellespont late in the year and returned to Asia Minor. He spent
Christmas 1255 in Lampsakos, where he had made a series of promotions
and appointments.87
Ep. 206: late autumn 1255. This letter announces to Mouzalon the
author’s imminent return.
Ep. 207: late autumn 1255. This letter, too, notifies Mouzalon of Theo-
dore’s imminent return, partly in the form of an imaginary dialogue
between the two correspondents. He mentions the “Scythian Cleopas”
(that is, his trusted Cuman general Cleopas), whom the author has sent
to Asia Minor ahead of his own arrival. Cleopas is the same man who in
the spring of 1256 would lead a detachment of Cuman troops against
fellow Cumans allied with the Bulgarians and inflict a crushing defeat on
them along the Regina River in eastern Thrace.88
Ep. 208: late autumn 1255, or 1256. This letter mentions that Theodore
has sent to Mouzalon in Asia Minor an individual whose “shameful deeds”
(αἴσχη) are compared to the fall of Adam and Eve. In addition, it reports
that the bishop of Didymoteichon preached to the night guards of the
fortress. Mouzalon was told to correct this individual’s errors but also to
grant a pound of gold coins to the “mentioned” person. Whether the
rewarded person was the reprimanded man referred to in the rest of the
letter, or another individual known solely to the letter-bearer, is not clear.
Theodore Laskaris visited Didymoteichon in late 1255 before his
86
Akrop. I, §58 (pp. 114–17), §59 (pp. 117.18–118.22).
87
Akrop. I, §60 (p. 124.1–24). On this letter, see Dragoumis 1911–12:213.
88
This information is found solely in the Synopsis chronike, 524.5–11.
374 Appendix 2
unsuccessful attack on Tzepaina. But he may have toured the area again in
the spring and summer of 1256 while the army was encamped along the
Regina River in eastern Thrace.89 Both late 1255 and 1256 are, therefore,
possible dates for the letter.
Ep. 87: 1255. This letter is one of the three epistles to Akropolites (Epp.
87–89) preserved in V that date to Theodore’s reign. Ep. 87 complains of
the insubordination and cowardice of the generals, whom the author
compares to tortoises, dung beetles, foxes, and frightened hares (lines
41–45). In spirit it resembles Ep. 204 and seems to have been written in
the summer of 1255 when Akropolites evidently stayed in Asia Minor.
Akropolites is known to have accompanied Theodore in 1256 during the
two-year-long Bulgarian campaign.
Thematic cluster (Epp. 142–47): Letters to the papal curia (1256–58). The
six letters are transmitted solely in V, along with epistles dating to the sole
reign of Theodore Laskaris. Epp. 142–43 are addressed to Pope Alexander
IV. The recipient of Epp. 144–45 is Cardinal Richard Annibaldi – a relative
of Pope Alexander IV, a former archpriest of St. Peter, a cardinal since
1237, and the founder of the Augustinian order.90 Ep. 146 addresses
Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini, a former bishop of Bologna from a Floren-
tine Ghibelline family who had served as Roman cardinal since 1244, and
Ep. 147 addresses Cardinal Peter Capoccio, a member of a noble Roman
family who had also been a cardinal since 1244.91 In his Regesten der
Kaiserurkunden, Franz Dölger linked the dossier with the resumption of
the negotiations with the papacy after the death (December 7, 1254) of
Pope Innocent IV and dated all six letters to the early months (January–
March 21) of 1256: that is, before Theodore departed for the Balkans
during the second year of his Bulgarian campaign.92
A fuller picture of the new round of negotiations emerges from add-
itional sources: a rich dossier of letters and documents issued by the
chancery of Pope Alexander IV; and the letter in Greek that Manuel
Disypatos, metropolitan bishop of Thessalonica, composed on behalf of
Patriarch Arsenios and addressed to Pope Alexander IV after the
89
Akrop. I, §60 (p. 123.3). The strategic importance of Didymoteichon in 1256 is illustrated by
the fact that the Cumans plundered its environs early in that year. See Akrop. I, §60
(pp. 125.27–126.1).
90
Roth 1954:5–18.
91
On Ubaldini, see Hauss 1912; Van Cleve 1972:505–6. On Capoccio, see Reh 1933.
92
Dölger–Wirth, Regesten, 1835–39. An entry for the emperor’s second letter to Cardinal Richard
Annibaldi (Ep. 145) is missing.
Appendix 2 375
conclusion of the debates in Thessalonica in the autumn of 1256.93 Alex-

ander IV’s Latin letters show that the initiative to reopen the negotiations
came from Theodore, who sent his agents Theodore Dokeianos and
Demetrios Spartenos to the papal curia. The two envoys brought with
them a letter from the emperor to the pope, and the pope wrote a letter in
reply to Theodore, which has survived without its date of issue.94 After
receiving Dokeianos and Spartanos, Alexander IV asked Constantine,
bishop of Orvieto – a Dominican who had already been selected by Pope
Innocent IV for a unionist embassy to the Nicaean court – to prepare
himself for the embassy to the Greek East within ten days.95 By
September–October 1256, Constantine of Orvieto had arrived in Thessa-
lonica and held discussions there with Theodore Laskaris and high Byzan-
tine ecclesiastics.96
Legitimate doubts have been raised as to whether all six letters of
Theodore Laskaris were composed in early 1256, at the very beginning of
the negotiations, because the subject matter and content of most of them
presupposes prior contacts.97 In fact, only Ep. 143, addressed to Pope
Alexander IV, can belong to the initial stage of the epistolary exchange.
The remaining letters seem to be later. Three of them (Epp. 142, 144, and
146) respond to a petition for the release of an important Latin prisoner of
war. Vitalien Laurent has connected this request with the skirmishes
around Constantinople in the summer of 1257 attested in Pope Alexander
IV’s register (entry for July 15, 1257).98 This is certainly a possibility. In
addition, students of Byzantine diplomatics have been puzzled by the
peculiar style and form of the letters. Franz Dölger thought that they were
private letters rather than products of the chancery.99 Luca Pieralli
observed the conspicuous absence of standard diplomatic components
(for example, a dispositio or an eschatocol), the unusual salutatio of the
protocol of Ep. 143, and the high rhetorical language and philosophical
content of all letters. He proposed that the epistles, as preserved in V, were
93
The Latin dossier has been published by Schillmann 1918 and reedited by Haluščynskyj and
Wojnar 1966. On the basis of these documents and Theodore’s letters, Laurent (1935) made a
number of interesting observations on the unionist negotiations at the time. For a critical edition
and commentary of the letter composed on behalf of Patriarch Arsenios, see Pieralli 1998.
94
Schillmann 1918:119–23; Haluščynskyj and Wojnar 1966:48–51.
95 96
Schillmann 1918:113–14; Haluščynskyj and Wojnar 1966:44–46. See Chapter 8, p. 168.
97
Thus, Pieralli (2006:11, n. 46) proposed a date of 1256–57 for Ep. 145 to Richard Annibaldi and
Laurent (1935:44, n. 1) suggested a date after November 1256 for Ep. 147 to Peter Capoccio.
98
Laurent 1935b:55, n. 1; De la Roncière et al. 1902–59, II:no. 2072 (p. 637).
99
Dölger-Wirth, Regesten, V–VI (Dölger’s preface to the first edition of 1932).
376 Appendix 2
revised by a rhetorician, perhaps by the emperor himself, and therefore

have little to do with the original letters sent to the papacy. In his view, no
one in Nicaea was able to render Theodore’s elaborate prose into Latin.100
Yet Alexander IV’s letter of response to Theodore Laskaris makes clear that
the pope had in front of him a letter not unlike Ep. 143. The pope admires
the emperor’s natural arguments, philosophical reasoning, and recourse to
theological authorities. Theodore is praised fulsomely for “the grandeur of
sententious eloquence” (sententiosi eloquii maiestas) and “the abundance of
a learned command of language” (doctae dissertitudinis affluentia).101 The
Latin translation of Theodore’s letter evidently conveyed well enough the
form and content of the Greek, and Alexander IV’s letter of response seems
to imitate on purpose its rhetorical style.102 It is, of course, impossible to say
what version of Ep. 143 reached the papacy, and it is reasonable to assume
that this letter, like all letters, was edited before its incorporation into the
authorized collection. The removal of chancery usage was a component of
the editorial process (see above, p. 5). In any case, there is no reason to doubt
that the emperor’s pen was responsible for the six letters.
Ep. 143: January–March 1256. This letter, to Pope Alexander IV,
expresses the hope for the termination of the schism and asks the
pope to dispatch someone “strong in his views” to carry out the negoti-
ations. The letter dates to the initial stage of reopening of communications
with the papacy and seems to have been written during the emperor’s
stay in Nymphaion before the resumption of the Bulgarian campaign
in 1256.
Ep. 142: October 1256–58. This letter to Pope Alexander IV mentions the
fulfillment of the pope’s urgent request and the sending of a Latin prisoner,
evidently a prominent enough individual, back to his homeland. The
pope’s prayers were in lieu of the payment of a ransom (lines 15–18).
Ep. 142 thus shares the same subject with Epp. 144 and 146. The name of
the Latin individual is missing. He is called “so and so” (ὁ δεῖνα), a clear
sign that the name was removed when the letter was edited for
publication.103
Ep. 144: October 1256–58. This letter, to Cardinal Richard Annibaldi,
notifies him of the release of the prisoner of war.
100
Pieralli 2006:10–11, 128, n. 2.
101
Schillmann 1918:120; Haluščynskyj and Wojnar 1966:48–49.
102
As noted by Laurent 1935b:46, n. 2.
103
For a similar example from the correspondence of Nikephoros Choumnos when the
expression ὁ δεῖνα was introduced in the editorial process, see Riehle 2011:49–50.
Appendix 2 377
Ep. 145: October 1256–1258. This letter to Cardinal Richard Annibaldi,

of which a fragment survives, discusses the relationship between human
and divine (theological) knowledge, and points to the unknowability of
God on the basis of first principles. It is close in spirit to polemical
arguments made in Theodore’s Orations against the Latins.
Ep. 146: October 1256–1258. This letter, to Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini,
notifies him of the release of the prisoner of war.
Ep. 147: 1257–58. This letter, to Cardinal Peter Capoccio, responds to
exhortations mixed with remonstrations on the part of the cardinal about
Theodore’s silence. Theodore writes diplomatically that “patience together
with examination brings the most peaceful rewards” (lines 45–46) and urges
his addressee to write to him with any requests.104 The letter presupposes
prior correspondence between the two men and seems, therefore, to date
after the discussions in Thessalonica in the autumn of 1256.
Ep. 212: 1256. This letter, to George Mouzalon, congratulates him on his
marriage to Theodora: the daughter of the governor (doux) of Thrakesion,
John Komnenos Kantakouzenos, and Irene Palaiologina, the sister of
Michael Palaiologos. The marriage was arranged following Mouzalon’s
promotions in Christmas 1255 in Lampsakos. The letter dates, therefore,
to 1256 and seems to have been addressed to Mouzalon from the Balkans.
Ep. 214: January 1257. This letter to Mouzalon was written on the
occasion of the flight of ‘Izz al-Dīn Kaykāwūs II to the empire of Nicaea.
According to the eyewitness account of Synopsis chronike, Theodore
welcomed the sultan to Sardis in person shortly after Epiphany Day
(January 6) 1257 and brought him to Magnesia, in whose vicinity the
Nicaean troops were encamped. The letter captures the euphoria of the
moment and must have been composed in Magnesia in January 1257, not
long after the initial encounter.105
Ep. 44: 1257. This long polemical letter to Blemmydes mentions that the
borders of the empire of Nicaea extended to Dyrrachion (line 33). There-
fore, the letter dates after the treaty with Michael of Epiros in September
1256 that ceded the city to Nicaea, but before the loss of Dyrrachion to
Manfred in 1258.106 It was written after the emperor’s return to Asia
104
Laurent 1935:44, n. 1.
105
Synopsis chronike, 530.12–29. For a discussion of the letter and a translation, see Angelov
2011a. Note that the immediately preceding Ep. 213 (with which Theodore sent from
Magnesia six luxurious, gold-decorated and foreign-looking items of clothing to Mouzalon)
may also have been written in January 1257 during the same stay in Magnesia.
106
Akrop. I, §63 (pp. 133.12–15), §67 (pp. 140.1–9); MM, III, 240. See Chapter 8, p. 176.
378 Appendix 2
Minor in 1257.107 Theodore describes his daily routine (lines 63–75), and
makes an impassioned argument for an increase in army finances and the
recruitment of native, Hellenic troops (lines 80–84).
Ep. 45: autumn 1257–58. This letter to Blemmydes praises the rhetorical
style of the latter’s most recent laudatory epistle. It mentions the author’s ill
health and the pain in his hand (lines 28 and 60–63), which he hopes that
his “spiritual doctor” (νοερὸς ἰατρός), Blemmydes, will be able to cure.
Theodore complains about the incompetence of physicians who make his
condition worse. The pain in his hand is the same symptom as in Ep. 48,
which gives a detailed description of the illness. Theodore’s disease mani-
fested itself in the late months of 1257 (see Appendix 3), hence the
suggested terminus post quem of the letter.
Ep. 46: autumn 1257–58. This letter to Blemmydes can be dated on the
basis of its position between Epp. 45 and 48 referring to the author’s illness.
It speaks cryptically of the beheading of the dragon in accordance with
Blemmydes’ prophetic words and mentions with pride the author’s victory
and the accomplishment of “Hellenic bravery,” which Blemmydes is called
to admire. To whom does the metaphor of the decapitated dragon refer? The
most likely possibility is that the author envisages the weakening of the
Bulgarian kingdom after the victorious war of 1255–56. After the treaty of
Regina, the Bulgarian king, Michael Asen, was assassinated outside Turnovo.
The period of political turmoil (see Chapter 8, pp. 166–67) ended with the
accession of Constantine Tikh, a nobleman from Skopje, who sent an
embassy to Nicaea in the late 1257 or 1258 to ask for the hand in marriage
of Theodore’s daughter Irene and legitimize his power. The reference to
“Hellenic bravery” parallels the Hellenic pride in letters written during the
Bulgarian campaign: Epp. 202.55–59, 204.58–59, 204.124–130.
Ep. 47: autumn 1257–58. This letter comments on the brevity of a letter
by Blemmydes and states that it accepts its unspecified prophetic words. Its
position between Epp. 45 and 48 suggests its date.
Ep. 48: 1258. This letter to Blemmydes gives a detailed description
of Theodore’s terminal illness (see partial translation in Appendix 3, 384).
The author complains of a “bodily pain which no one has ever seen or
heard,” criticizes again the incompetence of his doctors, and asks for Blem-
mydes’ prayers, informing him at the end that he has carried out his request
transmitted through an anonymous protonotarios. The letter dates to the last
several months of the life of Theodore Laskaris.
107
For this dating, see Angelov 2007:193.
Appendix 2 379
Datable Letters
Letters datable within a delimited timeframe, including Theodore’s sole
rule (November 1254–August 1258)
Ep. 1 before autumn 1241

Ep. 2 autumn 1241
Ep. 8 early 1242 or early 1243
Ep. 10 late 1243–44
Ep. 11 late 1243–44
Ep. 18 1252
Ep. 21 1244–45?
Ep. 22 1244–45?
Ep. 24 1252
Ep. 26 1246–47?
Ep. 36 1253
Ep. 37 1253
Ep. 38 1253
Ep. 39 1253
Ep. 40 autumn 1253
Ep. 42 1254–58
Ep. 43 1254–58
Ep. 44 1257
Ep. 45 autumn 1257–58
Ep. 46 autumn 1257–58
Ep. 47 autumn 1257–58
Ep. 48 1258
Ep. 49 1241–46
Ep. 57 1252
Ep. 58 1252
Ep. 59 1252
Ep. 60 1252
Ep. 61 1252–53
Ep. 72 1252–53
Ep. 77 1253
Ep. 78 1253
Ep. 80 1253
Ep. 83 late autumn 1253
Ep. 87 1255
Ep. 88 1254–58
Ep. 89 1254–58
380 Appendix 2
Long Ep. to Akropolites 1253

Ep. 94 1253
Ep. 107 1243–49
Ep. 118 1252
Ep. 125 autumn 1253
Ep. 131 1254–58
Ep. 132 1252–53
Ep. 141 1254–58
Ep. 142 October 1256–58
Ep. 143 January–March 1256
Ep. 144 October 1256–58
Ep. 145 October 1256–58
Ep. 146 October 1256–58
Ep. 147 1257–58
Ep. 180 early to mid 1253
Ep. 184 December 12, 1253
Ep. 185 December 1253 or winter 1254
Ep. 187 January–October 1254
Ep. 193 November–December 1254
Ep. 194 c. December 12, 1254
Ep. 195 December 1254–January 1255
Ep. 198 winter 1255
Ep. 199 winter 1255
Ep. 200 winter 1255
Ep. 201 winter 1255
Ep. 202 summer 1255
Ep. 203 summer 1255
Ep. 204 summer 1255
Ep. 208 late autumn 1255, or 1256
Ep. 211 1254–58
Ep. 212 1256
Ep. 213 January 1257
Ep. 214 January 1257
Ep. 217 1254–58

Appendix 2 Chronology of The Letters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix 2 Chronology of The Letters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix 2 | Chronology of the Letters

In 1898 the Italian philologist Nicola Festa published an edition of

on a campaign in the Balkans.2 He argued that the letters follow a chrono-

Laurentianus Plut. 59, 35 (14th c.), or the Laurentian

humanist Politian wrote marginal scholia on the letters of Synesius.12

Vindobonensis Philol. gr. 321 (13th c.)13

Blemmydes in the headings in the Laurentian epistolary collection and in

Laurentianus, Conventi soppressi 627 (13th c.)19

The Laurentian Epistolary Collection (Early 1254)

This edition of the letters postdates the embassy of Berthold of Hohenburg

seen in Chapter 7, the stimulating intellectual discussions during Bert-

Iatropoulos, the prokathemenos of Philadelphia.26 Three headings, how-

At ﬁrst glance, the letters appear to follow chronological sequence both in

Conventi soppressi 627 and dating to the Bulgarian campaign (1255–56).

The Datable Letters and Clusters of Letters

beginning of Theodore’s education. It was copied before the earliest datable

not correspond with the information found in Epp. 2 and 8. Nikephoros

the resigning metropolitan of Ephesos to become a monk on Mount Ganos

in 1242 or 1243, when he took the monastic habit. He was subsequently

Thematic cluster (Epp. 10 and 11): Arrival of Nikephoros as the new

spring of 1250.64 The metropolitan bishop of Sardis, Andronikos, is reported

me no hope of its rising.”71 He asks rhetorically: “Where is the ﬂower of

Him to Find a Bride (1252–53). This dating is supported by the allusion in

him composed in the form of defamatory verses (tetrastichs) near Nym-

Thematic cluster (Epp. 83–86): Return of John Vatatzes and Akropolites

conclusion of the debates in Thessalonica in the autumn of 1256.93 Alex-

revised by a rhetorician, perhaps by the emperor himself, and therefore

Ep. 145: October 1256–1258. This letter to Cardinal Richard Annibaldi,

Ep. 1 before autumn 1241

Long Ep. to Akropolites 1253

You might also like